BIAXIALLY LOADED L-SHAPED REINFORCED

CONCRETE COLUMNS
By Cheng-Tzu Thomas Wsu, 1 M. ASCE
a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: ^Results of an experimental and analytical investigation on the strength

and deformation of biaxially loaded short and tied columns with L-shaped cross
section are presented. The study explores the behavior of reinforced concrete
/columns under loads monotonically up to failure. A few tests loaded cyclically/
are also compared with those loaded monotonically. The strength interaction
curves and load contours of L-shaped columns based on analysis and some test
results are shown in this paper to provide advice for design information. Two
design examples are given to provide possible design procedureiTl

INTRODUCTION

Structural members subjected to axial load and biaxial bending are en-
countered in design practice from time to time; a typical example is the
2y>£corner columnjin a framed structure. In recent years, the idea of using
~ Jrregularly shaped columns such as L-shaped columns at the corners of
2>)£framed structuresjand at the enclosure of elevator shafts has d r a w n the
attention of investigators.
It is felt that current code provisions a n d available m e t h o d s d o not
offer an insight into the determination of both strength and ductility of
such biaxially loaded reinforced concrete columns. This study lays a spe-
cial emphasis on L-shaped columns, as the design of such columns can
be performed in the future. fi$)
_ _ ^ ^ The primary objective of this project was to study the/sfrength
:he/sTre and
J_deformational behavior|of L-shaped tied columns under|combined biax-
_ ial bendingjandl axial compressionfexperimentally. To assess the accu-
^ \ racy of-a~Cbmputer program satisfying equilibrium of forces and strain
~"' compatibility that is based o n input material stress-strain curves; a mod-
ified Newton-Raphson numerical m e t h o d w a s used for the computer
program. Both the experimental and analytical results form the basis for
a recommended design technique.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Current m e t h o d s of analysis are based on the basic governing equa-

tions of strain compatibility and summation of forces and m o m e n t s and
the stress-strain relations for both concrete a n d reinforcing steel. The
methods can be classified into three groups: (1) Discrete element m e t h o d
(4,6,8); (2) triangular superposition m e t h o d (7,9,10); a n d (3) line integral
method (16). Hsu (11-14) proposed a computer analysis program b y us-
ing the rectangular discrete element and the extended Newton-Raphson
'Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Environmental Engrg., New Jersey Inst, of
Tech., Newark, NJ 07102.
Note.—Discussion open until May 1, 1986. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manu-
script for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Feb-
ruary 28, 1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
I l l , No. 12, December, 1985. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/85/0012-2576/$01.00. Pa-
per No. 20241.

2576

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 numerical method. The complete stress-strain curves for concrete and
the reinforcing steel were used. This analytical model developed can ac-
count for any section geometry and material properties and also simulate
the load-deformation and moment-curvature behavior of structural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

members under biaxial bending and axial load.

For the purpose of analysis, the cross section of the reinforced con-
crete member is divided into several small elemental areas (Fig. 1). A
modified form of the Cranston-Chatterji stress-strain curves for concrete
in tension and in compression was used. These curves can account for
the strain-softening of concrete as well as the ultimate compressive strain
in confined or unconfined concrete elements (Fig. 2). The stress-strain
curve for steel reinforcement has been idealized using piecewise linear
approximation to the curve in the strain hardening region. The computer
analysis program also invokes the following assumptions: (1) The bend-
ing moments are applied about the principal axes of the cross section;
(2) plane sections remain plane before and after bending; (3) the longi-
tudinal stress at an element is dependent only on the longitudinal strain
at that point so that the effects of creep and shrinkage are neglected; (4)
strain reversal does not occur; and (5) buckling does not occur before
the ultimate load is attained.
Consider an element k with its centroid point uk, vk referred to the
principal axes. The strain e*. across the element k can be assumed to be
uniform and since plane sections remain plane during bending:
«* = eP + <t>« vk + §vuk (1)
where ep = uniform direct strain due to an axial load P; <&,, = the cur-
vature produced by the bending moment component, M„, and is con-
sidered positive when it causes compressive strains in the positive v di-
rection; and §v = the curvature produced by the bending moment
component, M„, and is considered positive when it causes compression
in the positive u direction.
Once the strain distribution across the cross section is established, the
axial force, P, and the bending moment components, M„ and Mv, can
be calculated using the following equations:

?M = E M (2«)
fc=l

n
M
"(c) = t =2l M U k (2&)

M
* > = *=i
2 A"*M* ( 2c )
Subscript (c) indicates values of P, M„, and Mv, calculated in an iteration
cycle; and ak = the area of element k.
For a given section (known geometry and material properties), the stress
resultants P, M„, and Mv, can be expressed as functions of 4>„, $v, and
ep given by the following equations:

P = P(<k A , * , ) (3fl)
2577

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

- * * 3 8AR
(TYP.)

_ :s:

-£] :s:
~^~

FIG. 1.—L-Shaped Section Divided into Elements for Computer Analysis

o, i

'c

i^v 2 \
2£ol ect
i ••COMPRESSION STRAIN
t S E0y e0 f "
&u p""

0.25f, <t

I: UNCONFINED CONCRETE
2: CONFINED CONCRETE

FIG. 2.—Concrete Stress-Strain Curves (from Ref. 11)

2578

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 M„ - Mu®u,4>v,£p) (3b)
Mv = Mv($uAv,eP) (3c)
If p(s) is the final value of P for which the equilibrium and the com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

patibility conditions are satisfied, the convergence of P(c) to P(s) can be

accelerated using a modification of the extended Newton-Raphson
method. The final values of Mu and Mv can be calculated using the fol-
lowing equations:
M„(s) = P(s)ev and MB(S) = P(s)e„ (4)
where e„ and ev = the load eccentricity components along the u- and v-
axes, respectively. P (s) , M„(s), and Me(s) can be expressed in terms of P (c) ,
M„(C), and M„(c) using Taylor's expansion and retaining linear terms. The
process of the iteration at a given load level continues (in the computer
program) until convergence is obtained within the specified tolerances.
Once this is achieved, the computer program takes up the next load
level and repeats the entire procedure. The computer program, its ac-
curacy and the convergence of the procedures were examined in more
detail in Ref. 11.
Since the principal axes are taken for analytical purpose, co-ordinates
transformation is an important procedure. From the strength of mate-
rials, the following steps can be used for transformation of co-ordinates,
moments, and curvatures:
1. Find moment of inertia Ix, Iy and product moment of inertia Ixy .
2. Use the equation tan 29 = 21^/(Iy - lx) to determine the angle be-
tween the centroidal and the principal axes.
3. Use the equation:

= [R] (5)

cos 9 —sin 9
where [R] = (6)
sin 9 cos 9
Following these steps, the data for the specimens used in this study
(see Fig. 1), can be determined as follows: Ix = 144.8 in.4, Iy = 81.5 in. 4 ,
lxy = -43.4 in.4, and 9 = 27°.
From the preceding investigation, the load, moment, and curvature
with respect to the principal axes u and v can be found easily. For prac-
tical purposes, these results should be transferred to the centroidal axes
x and y.
Now consider the centroidal axes x and y as global co-ordinate axes
and the principal axes u and v as local co-ordinate axes as shown in Fig.
1. The angle of rotation is considered in counter-clockwise direction. The
transformation matrix R' can be obtained as follows:
cos 9 sin 9
[R'] = (7)
-sin 9 cos 9
Moments and curvature about the centroidal axes in terms of the mo-
ment and the curvature about the principal axes can be given as follows:
2579

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 Mx
= [R'] (8)
M„

Mx = M„ cos 6 + Mv sin 6 (9a)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

My = Mv cos 8 - M„ sin 6 (9b)

4>x 4>iy -= [R
r pr' i r
and [R'] (10)
. ^ <t>y .<k« 4>i.
since u and u are the principal axes, §uv = 0. Therefore
$x = <)>„ cos 2 8 + ()>„ sin 2 8 (11a)
2 2
(K, = ()>„ sin 8 + <|>0 cos 8 (lib)
Since, 8 = 27° (see Fig. 1), therefore
Mx = 0.891 M„ + 0.454 Mv (12a)
My = 0.891 Mv - 0.454 M„ (12b)
i?x = 0.794 $„ + 0.2061 <(>„ (13a)
^ = 0.794 <)>„ + 0.2061 <(>„ (13b)
The approximate equations proposed by H s u et al. (13) were used to
evaluate the central deflections of the column specimens and are as fol-
lows:

(14a)

and by = <w2 (14b)

where bx and 8y represent the midheight deflections along x and y-axes,

respectively; a n d / = the overall height of the column.

TABLE 1.—S pecimen Details

Specimen
number
Main
bars
f.
(ksi)
u
(psi)
s
(in.)
ex
(in.)
ev
(in.)
; /' Px
(%) a
(ft) (ft)
0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
la' 14-#3 51.8 3,776 3 1.75 0.25 6 4 4.9 8.1
2aa 14-#3 51.8 3,756 3 0.643 0.643 6 4 4.9 45
3a' 14-#3 51.8 3,726 2 1.393 -0.357 6 4 4.9 -14.2
4b" 14-#3 67.0 4,200 3 1.53 5.0 6 4 4.9 73
5b' 14-#3 67.0 4,200 3 1.68 5.5 6 4 4.9 73
6b a 14-#3 58.0 4,000 3 1.68 6.5 6 4 4.9 75.5
7cb 14-#3 51.8 3,478 2 0.643 0.643 6 4 4.9 45
8cb 14-#3 51.8 3,868 3 0.643 0.643 6 4 4.9 45
9cb 14-#3 51.8 3,510 4 0.643 0.643 6 4 4.9 45
10cb 14-#3 51.8 3,882 4 1.393 -0.357 6 4 4.9 -14.2
'Specimens were loaded monotonically.
b
Specimens were loaded with two or three cycles.

2580

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The experimental work in column research has been limited almost

exclusively to rectangular, circular, and octagonal cross sections. There
are but a few tests of columns with cross sections other than these. Bhat-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

L-SHAPED CROSS-SECTION

FIG. 3.—Test Specimen

Y
*

0.7S -
(TYP.)
T
h
i

o a
- STIRRUPS # I BARS

o c

3—0 ~o—ql
Q U _o so
«-0.5"
(TYP.)

FIG. 4.—Cross Section of Columns

2581

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 tacharyay et al. (1) tested one L-shaped column with biaxially eccentric
loads. Also, Ramamurthy and Hafeez Khan (19) tested 45 L-shaped col-
umns under combined biaxial bending and axial compression. However,
only the ultimate strength of the L-shaped columns was obtained. In
spite of the extensive use of L-shaped cross section in columns in mod-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ern buildings, there is very little experimental data on the strength and
deformation behavior of this section.
All together ten specimens were tested at the present study. All col-
umns were designed as short tied columns and were each six feet long.
Physical characteristics of columns tested are shown in Table 1 and Figs.
3 and 4. The brackets were heavily reinforced to prevent local failure.
All columns were reinforced longitudinally by 14 #3 bars with different
yield strengths, fy, as seen in Table 1. These longitudinal bars were held
together by 1/8 in. ties at spacings of 2-4 in. center to center. The ties
and longitudinal bars were tied together using 16 gage binding wire. The
reinforcement was assembled into a unit before it was placed in the mold.
Of total ten specimens, six and four specimens, respectively, were
loaded with monotonic and cyclic loadings. All the specimens were tested

St '*!
.-•! i

FIG. 5.—Experimental Setup

5 0
I •
& £ i
S 40 F»"MKM
g « 3 BAR
in
30

10

ISO 300 430 600 T30 900 1050

STRAIN (X K T 4 ) (IB./IN.)

FIG. 6.—Stress-Strain Curve for Reinforcement

2582

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 and studied for their complete behavior under combined biaxial bending
moments and axial compression and were used to examine some of the
variables involved, such as steel yield strength, and relative eccentrici-
ties. The test frames and the experimental setup were constructed for
this experimental program as shown in Fig. 5. The end conditions for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

supporting the column specimen during testings were pinned-ended.

The concrete used for casting the test specimens was prepared from
a graded mixture of crushed quartz and sand, Portland cement Type III
and water. The water-cement ratio varied from 0.65 to 0.8, and the cement-
sand ratio varied from 3 to 3.2. The concrete properties and the stress-
strain curves were determined using 3 X 6 in. cylinders. The reinforce-
ment for the test specimens consisted of intermediate grade #3 bars; a
typical stress-strain curve for/y = 58.0 ksi is shown in Fig. 6. The column
ties were fabricated using plain bars with a diameter of 0.125 in.

FIG. 7.—Some L-Shaped Columns after Failure

1 I 1 1 r i 1 I i r-
SPECIMEN 5b ULTIMATE LOAD SPECIMEN 5b ULTIMATE LOAD
10 3 5 . 1 KIPS. - 3 5 . 1 KIPS.

3B

L #-
25 - v A EXPERIMENTAL
20 -
\u
© THEORETICAL
1
15 -
-
w
10

5 I -
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
(a)
°K ( I N . ) y (IN.)

FIG. 8.—Load-Deflection Curves: (a) p-Sx; (b) p-by

2583

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 Several types of instrumentation were used in the experimental tests.
These included bonded strain gages on the outer and inner surfaces of
the model, embedded strain gages and demec gages in the concrete,
bonded strain gages on the reinforcing steel for strain and curvature
measurements, and Ames dial gages for deflection measurements. A de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tailed instrumentation layout was worked out for each model with a view
to compare experimental data with the computed results of homologous
points. The columns were tested in the horizontal position and the spec-
imens were loaded using an Enerpac 100-ton capacity hydraulic cylinder
(effective area = 20.63 sq in.).
Manual Enerpac pump Model PEM 2042 with a maximum pressure of
10 ksi was used to drive the ram. For the case of monotonic loading
conditions, the loads were applied monotonically from zero load until
failure of the specimen. For the case of cyclic loading conditions, each
specimen was loaded up to 40% (first cycle) and 70% (second cycle) of
the ultimate capacity and released the load to 5% of the ultimate capacity
and then reloaded until failure of the specimen. The experimental cur-
vature near the critical section was calculated from the measured strains
in steels and/or concrete surfaces using both electrical strain gages and
mechanical demec gages as described in Ref. 13. The central deflections
of the specimens were measured with dial gages. More details of the
experimental set up, instrumentation, materials, and test results can be
found in Refs. 15 and 20. Fig. 7 shows part of the test specimens loaded
to failure.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN ANALYSIS AND TEST RESULTS

Ultimate Load Capacity of the Columns.—Table 2 shows the present

computer analysis and experimental test results for L-shaped column
specimens. The experimental values of the axial load capacity were ob-

TABLE 2.—Ultimate Load Capacity

Monotonic Loading Cyclic Loadings
Analysis Test Test Number
Specimen results results results of cyclic " t e s t (3) ^ test (4)

number (kips) (kips) (kips) loads "analysis (2)

P
L
analysis (2)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
la — 51.6 — — — —
2a 116.5 111.4 — — 0.95 —
3a 71.0 64.0 — —. 0.90 —
4b 37.9 38.2 — — 1.01 —
5b 35.0 35.1 .— — 1.00 —
6b 26.5 26.8 — — 1.01 —
7c 116.5 — 92.8 2 — 0.80
8c 116.5 — 93.0 2 — 0.80
9c 116.5 — 82.5 3 — 0.71
10c 71.0 — 72.3 2 — 1.02
Remarks Average for monotonic loading 0.974 —
Average for cyclic loading — 0.833

2584

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 tained directly from the testing machine, while the theoretical values
were obtained from the present computer analysis. An examination of
Table 2 shows that good agreement was achieved between the experi-
mental ultimate load capacity and the computed values. The average
ratio between the experimental and analysis values for monothonic load-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing conditions was 0.974. The average ratio was 0.833 for cyclic loading
conditions, because the present analysis was derived from the mono-
tonic loading conditions.
Bhattacharyay et al. (1) also tested one L-shaped column with biaxially
eccentric load; they used the numerical method developed by Hsu and
Mirza (13) with a modification of concrete stress-strain curves. They con-
cluded that the iteration procedure given by Hsu and Mirza (13) is a
highly convergent one and is fairly good in estimating the ultimate load
capacity of compression members under biaxially bending. The experi-
mental and analytical failure loads were 1.02 tonne and 1.21 tonne, re-
spectively. Ramamurthy and Hafeez Khan (19) had extensively tested 45
L-shaped columns. No comparison with present analysis method was
made because some of the specimen details were not given in their pa-
per.
Strength Interaction Diagrams.—Strength interaction diagrams are the
strength combinations at which P„ and Mnx or M„y act together. There
are two kinds of bending moments derived at the present analysis, such
as bending moments about the principal axes and the centroidal axes,
respectively. For a comparative study of experimental and analysis re-
sults, the axial load and the bending moments about the centroidal axes
were used to plot the strength interaction diagrams. For experimental
moments about x and y-axes, the following equations (except for spec-
imens 2a and 3a) were used:
Mnx = Pn(ey + 8y) (15a)
M„y = Pn(ex + 8J (15b)
where bx, 8y = the deflections in x and y direction, respectively, at mid

TABLE 3.—Ultimate Moment Capacity

Specimen Analysis Results (kips-in.) Test Results (kips-in.)

number M„x M„x M„y
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
2a 75.0 75.0 71.6° 71.6°
3a 25.3 98.4 22.9° 89.2°
190.8° 58.4°
4b 189.0 58.0 205.0" 79.8"
192.4° 58.9°
5b 192.3 58.8 216.0" 84.8"
174.3° 45.0°
6b 192.2 44.5 188.2" 61.1"
"Experimental M, PA; M„, = P e
"Experimental M P„(es + 8y] and M„9 = P„(ex + 8,) where 8,, 8„ obtained
from the load-deflection curve.

2585

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 1— i 1 r

200 SPECIMEN 2a -
© THEORETICAL fj=3B00PSI,y'5l.8KSI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

*=43°
^ v A EXPERIMENTAL fj=3756PSI, ly=5l.8KSI
160 _
N. *=45°

120 \ / M
ny=pnex ~

80 \ -

40 -

i i / i i
40 80 120

Mm OR Mny (KIPS.-IN.)

FIG. 9.—Interaction Diagram Corresponding to Centroidal Axes

1 1 • i i
SPECIMEN 4b AND 5b
240 e THEORETICAL (,. =4000PSI,fj=S6.7KSI
= 73°
*,
• EXPERIMENTAL (i=4200PSI, f,= 67KSI
(SPECIMEN 4b)
200 t ^ - \ _ A EXPERIMENTAL <rt = 7 3 °
\ ^ ^ (SPECIMEN 5b)

160 s-r*-%x -
\ A*-Ki

120 \ -

\ EXP
W n x" p n<V&y> \
80
M„»-"ti<V&«>\\

40 «L ^ "
Mnx=pn < = * _ _ — - ^ J
M„y«Pn e, 1

^ i i / J
8 0 120 160
0R
Mux M nv (KIPS. - I N . )

FIG. 10.—Interaction Diagrams Corresponding to Centroidal Axes

2586

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 height of the column. Typical load-deflection curve for specimen 5b are
shown in Fig. 8.
Table 3 shows the comparative study of the analytical and experimen-
tal results for ultimate load capacity of the columns. For nominal bend-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing moments, Mnx, Mny, which were obtained from the following equa-
tions:
M = Pe
1Yx L
(16a)
nx n^y
M„y = P„ex (166)
An excellent agreement was noted for the theoretical and experimental
values. For Mnx and M„y calculated by Eq. 15. The experimental values
1 • 1 1 F 1 1
SPECIMEN 4b THEORETICAL - ® - M«-B«

M
EXP. HPS.-N. -°- '-0»
ttjnis 205
i EXPERIMENTAL & M»-B»
V A My- fly
J 200 .
NOTE: EXP. M , = P ( e , . * , l
3 e

" A My«p(8**SiO

- A -
A

u 100 EXP. KIPS.-IN.

Mny =79.8

/&

^-""^ 1 1 l 1 I I 1 1

CURVATURES 0 . OR 9y (X K>"*)(l/W.)

FIG. 11.—Moment-Curvature Curves about Centroidal Axes

P„-M n INTERACTION
CURVES

FAILURE SURFACE s .

LOAD CONTOUR"

FIG. 12.—Failure Surface of Combined Biaxial Bending and Axial Compression

2587

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 are more than those predicted by the analysis, and therefore, the ana-
lytical values are on the conservative side.
Figs. 9 and 10 show sets of interaction diagrams for Specimens 2a, 4b,
and 5b for comparative study. The theoretical interaction curves were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

obtained directly from the analysis, and the maximum compressive ca-
pacity of column specimen, Pn, was calculated by
Pn = 0.85f' c {A g ~ Ast) + fyA5t (17)
As compared with the experimental values, the theoretical strength in-
teraction diagrams are on the conservative side.
Moment-Curvature Curves.—The moments and curvatures were ob-
tained about x and y-axes where x and y-axes are the centroidal axes.
Experimental moments were obtained from either Eq. 15 or Eq. 16. Steel
and concrete strains were measured from the strain gages attached to
their surfaces. To obtain the strain distributions about x- and y-axes, the
demec gage method was used. This method was successfully used pre-
viously in Refs. 12 and 13. Two types of demec gage arrangements were
used (see Refs. 15 and 20) to calculate the strain distribution across the
critical section (actually each pair of demec points was installed 3 in.
away from the critical section). The strain distributions across the x-y
and y-z planes were found at each loading stage and were plotted against
the distance between the corresponding pair of demec points. Once the
strain distribution across the section was established, the following
equation was used to calculate the curvature:
ec
4>x o r <t>y = — (18)
ka
Eq. 18 was used previously in Refs. 5, 12, 13, and 17 where kd is the
distance between the location with the concrete strain ec and the point
of zero strain along the x or y-axis, respectively. Typical theoretical and
experimental moment-curvature curves are shown in Fig. 11. An excel-
lent agreement can be noted between the theoretical and experimental
values from zero load up to the moment at yield, and a satisfactory
agreement can also be seen from the moment at yield up to the maxi-
mum moment capacity of the column specimen.

LOAD CONTOUR AND DESIGN EQUATION FOR L-SECTION

The load contours and three-dimensional failure surfaces have formed

the basis of current design procedures for reinforced concrete columns
subject to biaxial bending and axial compression in the various national
codes. The load contour method involves cutting the failure surface as
shown in Fig. 12 at a constant value of P„ to give a so-called "Load
Contour" interaction relating Mnx and Mny . Figs. 13 and 14 show sets of
load contours at various values of P„ . To develop a design equation,
dimensionless load contours are needed. The general nondimensional
equation for the load contour at constant P„ may be expressed in the
following form (2) or another similar form (18):

©W- 2588
-
J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.
 — T ==T —-
SPECIMEN: AS SHOWN IN FIG. I
fg • WOO PSI
fy=>5l.8KSI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

160
d = so°

FIG. 13.—Load Contours

1 1 l 1 l
SPECIMEN: AS SHOWN IN FIS. 1
fj = 5000 PSI
<y = 5l.8KSI
200

d~ = 30°
/
t
P„=40KIPS /
I60! ^ ^ ^ ^ Pn=80KIPS CU45°
-7 / ///
1
/
~ i 120 KIPS ^ ^ 2/ /
//
/
1>. 120 ~---~^/
A ^
v/ & - so*
» / ^~~~^-Q'
/ /^
/ / >^ N.X "*

80
(
_
IfiO KIPS
)^^~~-—~-Y
/ / N. XjjT'

/' \
s \
40

W 1 1 k 1 V 1 Vh
80 120 160 200
M nx (KIPS.-IN.)

FIG. 14.—Load Contours

2589

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 1 1 1 1
i -r— r i l
SPECIMEN: AS SHOWN N FIG. 1
|£=3500PSI
ly=5l.8KSI'
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.0
x<r^r~"^— °1
W%
0.9
" \ \ > ^ x2NC
0.6 \
0.7

J\* 0.6
< \ \ .

0.5
e F»=20KIPS T^=I60KIPS
\\ V°
\
V
/ Nx
\\
\ \/ \
0.4 O Pn=40KIPS \ \ \ \
X Pn=60KIPS
0.3
\\ \ \ \ \ \\ -
" 4 P„=80KIPS ^ ^ • " • o — ^ \ \ \ \ "

0.2 - A P„=I00KIPS
\\\\ Av
0.1
• P„=I20KIP8
\ \ \\
D P„=I40KIPS

i l i i ^
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0
M„.

FIG. 15.—Dimensionless Load Contours

1 1 I 1 T T t — i i
SPECIMEN: AS SHOWN IN FIG. 1
fj-SOOOPSI
f y -SI.8KSI

1.0 -
^?r~— T
0.9
\V N w
-£(••% 2 0
o.a VT^-I.B

0.7 ^
\ o
0.6 - © Pn=20KIPS \ ^ , \
\ \
0.6
0 P„ = 40KIPS
X P„ = 60KIP3 \\ >y \
0.4 - A P„-80KPS

A P„»I00KIP3
0.3
• P„ = I20WPS
w*
0.2

0.1
- • Pn = l40KPS

_ W P„=I80KIP3
^ • 1 . 0 -
\\V
1 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 >!
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0
M
"ox

FIG. 16.™Dimensionless Load Contours

2590

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 I 1 T~ n——i—^—i i—^——r- r
SPECIMEN-. AS SHOWN H FIG. 1
t',,- 4000 PSI
f y =66.TKSI

1.0
-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

^
\ •** "»>* ^* -*.
0.9 \ ^N^X--
•-
" \^l^>\

•7
0.8 !=«^=2.0

0.7
,-1.50

/
I ..1.67
0.6
X
0.5 - \ c^V
0.4
O Pn=40KIPS.

*f*f\X>. ^ V
m"
0.3 - 4 P, =80 KIPS.

0.2
• P„ =120 KIPS.

W pn =isoKipa tffe^l.34
\ VA
0.1

i i i i i i i i i N
0 0.1 0:2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.7 0,8 0.9 1.0

M„.
nx
Mox

FIG. 17.—Dimensionless Load Contour

where ax and a2 = exponents that depend on the dimensions of the cross

section, the reinforcement amount and location, concrete strength, steel
yield stress, and amount of concrete cover.
Figs. 15-17 show some of the dimensionless load contours at present
study. The variables involved in Figs. 15-17 are the maximum concrete
compressive strength, f'c, and the steel yield stress, <$>v. As shown in
these figures, at and a2 increase for larger values of P„ . The calculated
values of a! and a2 vary from 1.2 at P„ = 20 kips to more than 2.0 at Pn
= 160 kips. For practical design purpose, it seems satisfactory to take od
= oi2 as 1.5 for any L-shaped sections, which is the same as rectangular
section. From the present study, it seems that the higher value of c*i and
a2 may be used (see the following design examples) for practical design.

DESIGN EXAMPLE

Select an L-shaped cross section for a compression member subjected

to biaxial bending, to take the following ultimate loads:

Case(a): P„ = 61.6 kips; Mux = Muy = 39.6 kips-in.

Use f'c = 3,500 psi and fy = 51.8 ksi.
Case(b): P„ = 16.8 kips; Mux = 84.0 kips-in.; Muy = 25.7 kips-in.
Use f'c = 4,000 psi and fy = 66.7 ksi.
Solution: Step 1 Try a L-shaped cross section as shown in Fig. 1.
2591

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 Step 2 Try 14 # 3 bars as shown in Fig. 1.
pg = AJAg = 14 X 0.11/(3 x 6 + 3 x 4.5) = 0.049 say
4.9%, which is between 1% and 8% of gross area as
permitted by the ACI Building Code (3). Practically,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

values of 3-6% are commonly used.

Step 3 According to ACI Building Code, use cj> = strength
reduction factor = 0.7 for tied column.
Case(a) P„ = PJ<$> = 61.6/0.7 = 88 kips
M„x = M„y = 39.6/0.7 = 56.6 kips-in.
Case(b) P„ = PJ$ = 16.8/0.7 = 24 kips
M„x = 84.0/0.7 = 120 kips-in.
M„y = 25.7/0.7 = 36.7 kips-in.
Step 4 Find Mox and M^
Case(a) for P„ = 88 kips
ex = M„y/P„ = 56.6/88 = 0.643 in.
ey = M„x/P„ = 56.6/88 = 0.643 in.
a = tan" 1 (ey/ex) = 45°
.'. Mox = M^ = 90 kips-in. (see Fig. 9).
Case(b) For P„ = 24 kips
ex = Mny/P„ = 36.7/24 = 1.53 in.
ey = M„x/P„ = 120/24 = 5.0 in.
a = tan - 1 (ey/ex) = 73°
.•. Mox = 186 kips-in., Moy = 58 kips-in. (see
Fig. 10).
Step 5 Check with load contour method:
(Mnx/Mox)15 + {MJM^f-5 < 1.0
Case(a) (56.6/90)1-5 + (56.6/90)1-5 = 0.998 < 1.0 O.K.
Remark: The theoretical and experimental ultimate
load capacities of this section with ex = ey
= 0.643 in. (see Specimen 2a in Tables 1 and
2) are 116.5 kips and 111.4 kips, respec-
tively. The design value of Pn is 88 kips. The
possible failure mode in this specimen will
be in compression as seen in the interaction
diagram.
Case(b) (120/186)15 + (36.7/58)15 = 0.518 + 0.503
= 1.02 ~ 1 O.K.
Remark: The theoretical and experimental ultimate
load capacities of this section (see Speci-
men 4b in Tables 1 and 2) are 37.9 kips and
38.2 kips, respectively. The design value of
P„ is 24 kips. The possible failure mode as
seen in the interaction diagrams will be in
tension.
Step 6 Design the ties or stirrups as required by the ACI
Building Code (3).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A computer analysis model that simulate the load-deformation and

moment-curvature behavior of reinforced concrete elements subject to
2592

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 combined biaxial bending and axial load is presented. Based on load and
moment increments, the algorithm enables determination of ultimate
strength, interaction diagrams, load-deflection, and moment-curvature
relationships for reinforced concrete columns with square, rectangular,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and L-shaped sections a n d any material properties u p to the maximum

moment capacity of the sections. Excellent agreement was achieved be-
tween the experimental strengths obtained from the present tests a n d
the analytical results calculated using the above computer programs. The
experimental deflection a n d curvature data obtained from the present
tests were noted to be in good agreement with the present analytical
results as well.
Although the design procedures require determination of the strength
interaction curves, which is a formidable task, the present computer
analysis can be easily coded in microcomputer systems that will calculate
the ultimate load and ultimate moment capacities of any column cross
section in a few minutes. The load contour method based on 04 and a 2
= 1.5 for rectangular section has been found to be on the conservative
side as compared with the present analytical and experimental results.
Higher values of 04 and a2 may be used for practical design work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Financial support of Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, Consulting En-

gineers of Warren, NJ, and the N e w Jersey Institute of Technology is
gratefully acknowledged. Part of computations and experimental work
of the present study were conducted by the writer's graduate students
between 1979 and 1984: A Majlesi, A. Yekta, M. Taghechian, M. Saeedi,
A. Mesktooli, M. C. Liu, A. M. Shah, S. J. Jou, and K. Fitzgerald. Their
efforts are also greatly appreciated.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. Bhattacharyay, S., Chattapadhyay, B., Ray, T. C , and Som, P., "An Inves-
tigation of Concrete Columns with Special Reference to L and T Sections
With and Without Diaphragm," Vol. 16, LABSE, 1974, pp. 333-340.
2. Bresler, B., "Design Criteria for Reinforced Columns Under Axial Load and
Biaxial Bending," ACl Journal, Proceeding 57, Nov., 1960, pp. 481-490.
3. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACl 318-83), American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1983.
4. Chen, W. F., and Atsuta, T., Theory of Beam Columns, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York, NY, Vol. 2, 1977.
5. Corley, W. G., "Rotation Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. ST4, Oct., 1966, pp. 121-146.
6. Cranston, W. B., "A Computer Method for the Analysis of Restrained Col-
umns," Report TRA/402, Cement and Concrete Association, London, En-
gland, Apr., 1967.
7. Farah, A., and Huggins, M., "Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns
Subjected to Load and Biaxial Bending," Journal of the ACl, Vol. 66, No. 7,
July, 1969, pp. 569-575.
8. Gesund, H., "Monograph on Planning and Design of Tall Buildings," Vol.
CB Structural Design of Tall Concrete and Masonry Buildings, 1978, p. 185.
9. Gurfinkel, G., and Robinson, A., "Determination of Strain Distribution and
Curvature in a Reinforced Concrete Section Subjected to Bending Moment

2593

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 and Longitudinal Load," ACI Journal, Vol. 64, No. 7, July, 1967, pp. 398-
402.
10. Gurfinkel, G., "Analysis of Footings Subjected to Biaxial Bending," Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST6, June, 1970, pp. 1049-1059.
11. Hsu, C. T., and Mirza, M. S., "Structural Concrete—Biaxial Bending and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Compression," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. ST2, Feb.,
1973, pp. 285-290.
12. Hsu, C. T., and Mirza, M. S., "An Experimental-Analytical Study of Com-
plete Load-Deformation Characteristics of Concrete Compression Members
Subjected to Biaxial Bending," No. 16, IABSE, 1974, pp. 45-52.
13. Hsu, C. T., and Mirza, M. S., "Nonlinear Behavior and Analysis of Rein-
forced Concrete Columns under Combined Loadings," Study No. 14, M. S.
Cohn, ed., University of Waterloo Press, 1980, pp. 109-135.
14. Hsu, C. T., "L-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Column Section," Proceedings,
4th ASCE-EMD Specialty Conference, West Lafayette, IN, May 23-25, 1983,
pp. 557-560.
15. Majlesi, A., "Analysis and Tests of L-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Columns
Under Combined Biaxial Bending and Axial Compression," thesis presented
to New Jersey Institute of Technology, at Newark, NJ, in 1983, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
16. Marin, J., and Martin, I., "Designing Columns with Non-Rectangular Cross-
Section," Preprint 3707, ASCE, Atlanta Convention, Oct., 1979, 21 pp.
17. Mattock, A. H., "Rotational Capacity of Hinging Regions in Reinforced Con-
crete Beams," Proceedings, International Symposium on Flexural Mechanics
of Reinforced Concrete, ASCE-ACI, Sp. 12, Miami, FL, Nov., 1964, pp. 143-
182.
18. Parme, A. L., Nieves, J, M., and Gouwens, A., "Capacity of Reinforced Rec-
tangular Columns Subject to Biaxial Bending," ACI Journal, Proceedings 63,
Sept., 1966, pp. 911-923.
19. Ramamurthy, L. N., and Hafeez Kahn, T. A., "L-Shaped Column Design
for Biaxial Eccentricity," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No.
8, Aug., 1983, pp. 1903-1917.
20. Shah, A., "Behavior of L-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Com-
bined Bending and Compression," thesis presented to the New Jersey In-
stitute of Technology, at Newark, NJ, in 1984, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science.

APPENDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

\ = gross cross-sectional area,

Ast = total area of main reinforcement,
ik = area of element k,
Es = Young's modulus of elasticity for steel,
ex = eccentricity along x-axis,
e
y = eccentricity along y-axis,
f'c = ultimate strength of concrete,
fy = steel yield stress,
k = element number,
=
kd distance from maximum compressive concrete strain to neu-
tral axis,
I = total length of column,
V = effective length of column,
M„x = nominal bending moment about .t-axis, P„ey;
M,nj = nominal bending moment about y-axis, P„ex;
2594

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.

 M„, = M„x capacity at axial load P„ when Mmj is zero.
Moy = Mny capacity at axial load P„ when Mnx is zero,
M„. = moment at failure,
Mux = <t>M r a ,
M„y = <)>M„y,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on 06/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mx = bending m o m e n t about x-axis, Pey;

My = bending m o m e n t about y-axis, Pex;
P = axial load,
Pn = nominal axial load,
P« = +P»/
S = spacing of lateral reinforcement,
a = tan" 1 {ey/ex),
"1/0(2 = exponents in load contour equation,
8, = deflection in x direction,
8, = deflection in y direction,
ec = maximum compressive strain in concrete,
6* = strain in element k,
es = strain in reinforcing steel,
P« = steel percentage in gross cross-sectional areas, Ast/Ag,
* = strength reduction factor,
<t>x = curvature produced due to bending moment Mx, and
<t>y = curvature produced due to bending moment My .

2595

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:2576-2595.